Pune is just the name of another city because we’ve had a history of one attack in every six weeks: does it really matter where it happened and where it’ll happen next?

Needless, the usual charade followed this time as well: thundering media noise, outraged bloggers, shocked stars, a whimpering BJP, and the rest. It’s quite amusing actually. When 26/11 happened, India was under attack! and Mumbai (was) besieged! complete with the media copywriters’ semen stains on the headlines. But poor Pune has been robbed of such glamour. What the ugly assortment of politicians, penpushers, kingmakers, and the crown prince don’t realize–or don’t want us to know is the fact that India has been under attack for more than 1000 years. More on that after asking a rapid-fire round of questions:

• Dear Shahrukh Khan, this attack was done by your good neighbours. No. we’re not questioning your patriotism. We need honest answers. Your “good neighbour” remark might’ve been in the context of your IPL tomfoolery but Pakistan’s cricket team is NOT Pakistan. It’d do good for you to read this letter addressed to you. And next time, please don’t take Shakespeare’s “all the world’s a stage” too literally.
• Dear media, I know you’re already overworked with 24/7 spinning. And one of your Gin-sipping sisters has already speculated something about Sanathan Sanstha. Do us a service. Just STFU. We know operate largely in the space of cerebral vacuum but for once, don’t go overboard trying to prove it again and again. We know you won’t show the same spine you displayed in hammering the recent Shiv Sena hooliganism. Also do not spin the following:
• • Terror has no religion
  • Muslims are victims
  • This happened in <insert city of your choice> because Hindu fanatics are very strong here
  • The spirit of <insert city of your choice> will keep us going!
  • Shiv Sena and Taliban/JeM/LeT are the same
  • Secularism is under threat
  • Any and/or all of the above
• Dear fence-sitters and liberals, do not wax eloquent on the need for a “responsive” and “preventive” security apparatus, latest technology, advance warning signals, effective policing/Home ministry, international pressure, and similar nonsense.
• Dear Rahul Gandhi: where are you? The country needs you now! You can take a break from giving sleepless nights to those pretty university lasses.

What was limited to just Kashmir has merrily spread across the land in a space of just 6 years. A phenomenon familiar to anybody who has read Indian history–not the Romila Thapar version. To them, we’re a land of Kaffirs. Our eminent op-ed writers who try to explain this away are actually insulting the unblemished religious fervor of the perpetrators. These guys also harbour the illusion that Pakistan is really a democratic country–witness their several calls to “restore demoratic processes/norms/machinery” in Pakistan. Pakistan remains an Islamic theocracy. It’s even “purer” than Saudi Arabia in that it routinely vacuum-cleans non-Sunni Muslims (Ahammadiyas for example).

And because it is an Islamic theocracy, it is faithful to the Koran. Those who use the fancy military-jihadi complex need to consider this. What is the raison d’être for this military-jihadi complex? What propels and sustains it? The answer is uncomfortable but so is the truth. Military-jihadi is actually using the same word twice. If you are a pure Islamic country, your military exists not just to defend but to launch Jihad when the time is opportune. Also, Jihad essentially implies that you need to use military might to cleanse the world of infidels. There’s a reason why the likes of Kasab are given hardcore military training. To them, they are soldiers of Allah, sevants of the Prophet (PBUH). It’s therefore irrelevant if they are army regulars or freelancers. As history shows us, there’s no such thing as permanent peace in nations firmly under the sway of Islam. A current state of peace is simply preparations for the next Jihad. Which is why it is very important to use terms with full knowledge of their exact meaning. “Islamic terror” simply means Jihad. You cannot separate Islamic terror from its teachings. And it is the teachings that provide the justification for what’s known as the military-jihadi complex. People who call for a dismantling of this complex need to read the Quran and the Hadis first.

In the end, India has to take care of India’s interests. A friend might lend a supporting shoulder but you need to shed your blood and tears; he can’t do it on your behalf. Every country has its own methods to teach its enemies a lesson in a way they think is fit. Appealing to the US to mount pressure, etc won’t work. Pakistan’s relentless attacks against India is India’s problem. Talking international diplomacy and strategy is an optional next step. The first step is to grow a spine. (Vetoed! said Sonia).

Which city wants to go next?

Technorati : Congress Party, India, India Going to Dogs, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Islamic Terrorism, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Pune, Pune Blasts, Terrorism, UPA
Del.icio.us : Congress Party, India, India Going to Dogs, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Islamic Terrorism, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Pune, Pune Blasts, Terrorism, UPA

Among others, Sanatana Dharma’s greatest strength is its amazing power of adaptability, which gives it this strength. It responds to change in a manner and quickness that perhaps none of the other religions (desert death cults are not religions) can. This adaptability as history shows us, is multipronged, multifaceted, and dynamic. It took varities of forms in art, painting, music, epics, literature, religious practices, and social mores. It discarded practices that were no longer suited to the changed times but replaced them with suitable modifications and/or evolved newer ones. The underlying idea was a resolve that Sanatana Dharma was something worth preserving and dying for its preservation if necessary.

The earliest threat to Sanatana Dharma came from Buddhism, which our secular dunces claim rescued society from the evil Brahmins/caste system of Hindusim. When Buddhism arrived, Sanatana Dharma had become overtly ritualistic, which was pretty much Buddha’s diagnosis. However, over time, Buddhism became missionary and while people converted in large numbers, an irreversible corruption had set in. Santana Dharma responded by evolving the temple culture. This ensured that ordinary people had a terrific alternative to worship God apart from rituals. The role of temple culture in sustaining and preserving Sanatana Dharma can’t be emphasized enough. It created whole cities and towns around it, gave rise to some of the most magnificent works of art the world has seen, and in effect, propagated harmony in society.

Needless, the next biggest threat to Santana Dharma came in the form of seas of men on horseback motivated by a murderous, imperialist ideology. Islam’s grievous and protracted assault on Hinduism sustained because of a lack of awareness of its true nature. This assault continues to this day in various forms–negation and distortion of history, secularism, and mafia-style politics. It took a few centuries, but Hinduism responded by evolving the Bhakti movement and retelling our epics. The Bhakti movement arose in the wake of Islam’s homicidal record of smashing temples and not allowing new ones to be built. Additionally, the egalitarian Dhimmi “privileges” that Hindus enjoyed made it almost impossible for Hindus to even give expression to their deepest religious needs. The Bhakti movement stepped in to check the real danger of Sanatana Dharma eroding forever. It basically said that God didn’t exist merely in temples or in the mantras but in each of us. They exhorted people to preserve their way of life and worship in whatever form–nothing was taboo. The Bhakti saints worshipped our Gods and Goddess in songs composed in simple and/or rustic lyric in the local language. Rama became every Hindu’s neighbour and Krishna was just waiting on the other side of the river. These saints drew parallels from daily life, which helped immensely in retaining Sanatana Dharma as a living tradition. Over time, the sword of Islam was blunted to a great extent. South India saw a host of poets and writers and saints embark on a retelling of our epics. Sanatana Dharma owes enormous debt to all these souls.

The British takeover of India launched the other desert death cult Christianity, on Sanatana Dharma, which had begun to unshackle itself from Islam’s 800-year long attack. Christianity’s attack was refreshingly sophisticated but equally brutal. When it failed to persuade through several attempts, it reclothed its message and equated its Prophetic preaching with whatever parallel it found in Sanatana Dharma. In effect it said Christanity is no different from Santana Dharma–only the Gods and saints were different. Initially, significant numbers of “upper caste” Hindus converted. However, the gains were insignificant because almost in no time, the Hindu response was swift. Besides, a fierce tide of Hindu resurgence led by the likes of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi and Vivekananda pretty much scuttled conversion attempts. The Church quickly realized that it cannot win converts if it takes on Sanatana Dharma purely on the ground of religious precepts. Which is pretty much when the missionary vultures descended on the weaker, and poorer sections of Hindu society. The Church continues this preying activity unchecked today–any deception including but not limited to murder is justified in the service of the humanity, welfare, kindess, love, and compassion that Jesus Christ stood for. However, the greatest damage that the British enslavement of India did was to create the Macaulayite Class, who branched off later as Brown Sahibs and Marxists. This was something Islam couldn’t accomplish in 800 years. Sanatana Dharma responded in various ways: the likes of Swami Vivekananda tirelessly reawakening the Hindu pride, a whole galaxy of scholars who began digging into different aspects of their past and publishing it to the world, and freedom fighters who found inspiration in Sanatana Dharma‘s epics, scriptures, saints, and warriors.

Post-Independence, the Nehruvian regime continued the project of destroying Sanatana Dharma that the British had abandoned in a hurry. Till the late ’80s, the toxic atmosphere ensured that Hindus were ruthlessly put on the defensive. However, as a parallel development, an unpopular section of academics, thinkers, writers, and scholars worked silently and did two things, primarily: they produced top-notch defense of Sanatana Dharma and studied and exposed Islam and Christianity for what they are. Various organizations defended and championed Hindu causes in the political and social spheres. This paved way for yet another resurgence of Sanatana Dharma in the ’90s. But most importantly, it gave tremendous international exposure and support for Hindu causes. Obscure but valuable Hindu traditions were revived, and research began in areas like Ayurveda, astronomy, metallurgy, education, architecture, etc. However, this resurgence didn’t carry enough sustaining power and while it trudges ahead silently, the pace leaves a lot to be desired.

Tailpiece:

As we speak, Sanatana Dharma is relentlessly assaulted from almost all directions: Islam, the Church, Marxists, media, establishment, politicians, academics, and NGOs. What’s worse is the fact that a large portion of these attack originate from Hindus themselves. Hindus have mostly lost large parts of the North East to Christianity and continue to witness the results of a massive, ongoing conversion drive, while Islam continues to gain ground through the power of sheer numbers. Repeated attacks on Hindus, their way of life, places of worship, and institutions are denied, justified, obfuscated, or brazened away. Hindu response to these acts meet the same fate, and neither is the response significant. The continued apathy especially from the newly-emerged but large middle-class Hindus only adds to the magnitude of the threat. We only need to wait and see if Sanatana Dharma is capable of reasserting itself and showing the world the value it offers for eternity.

Tags: Attack on Sanatana Dharma, Cultural Unity of India, Defense of Hinduism, Defense of Santana Dharma, Dharma, Hindu, History, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Makara Sankranti, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Response of Hinduism to Challenges, Sanatana Dharma, Sankranti, Strength of Hinduism, Strength of Sanatana Dharma

I admire the work TED is doing. It has hosted some excellent thinkers like Alain De Botton and others whose names I can’t recall but was impressed. Like many attendees who shared their feedback, the TED session at Mysore kind of marked its ebb but this is not the place—and neither do I know enough to make an informed assessment.

However, it does hint at something if of all people, Mallika Sarabhai was given a platform to do what she did. As a backgrounder it helps to remember these general observations, all my own:

• of all the TED videos I’ve watched, not one has a marked political or racial bias.
• most if not all speakers have a sense of humour.
• almost every speaker has something to give as a takeaway to the audience—in terms of food for thought, a new idea, an alternative way of thinking about something, and so on.
• most if not all speakers have distinguished themselves in terms of their contribution in their respective fields.

If you rate Mallika Sarabhai’s talk on just these parameters, she still fails miserably.

Mallika Sarabhai’s CV says she’s an accomplished Kuchipudi and Bharatnatyam danseuse. However, I’m not sure just how firmly her fame she rests on these two classical dance forms. Even a cursory reading of the Wikipedia entry on her shows that she has “accomplished” far more in other areas than classical dance. In reality, she has distinguished herself as an aggressive feminist, a social worker, and a tireless champion against violence in society. And she has proclaimed—through Darpana, her art/theatre institute—she has chosen theatre and/or dance forms to push her message. Her TED talk is woven around the same theme—art as an enabler and/or medium of bringing about social change.

Her TED speech is characterized with a certain kind of crude loudness that instantly repulses you. Perhaps for effect. Sure. But it would’ve been effective had her talk contained substance. But it was, in two words: empty hollering.

She begins with an incredible story about a Brahmin’s wife, a female ascetic who is meditating under a tree. That sets the stage for her to begin bashing the Brahmin and the God Indra, who rapes her. For enhanced effect, she even demonstrates the rape by briefly fornicating the floor of the podium. And then embarks on a mini-discourse about justice for the woman.

The rest of her talk is about how art forms can be effectively employed to bring about social change. But mostly, it’s self-glorification: how her Mother impressed Nehru with one of such “social-change” performances, how her own plays/performances have made a positive impact, and similar self-back-patting antics. She yells at the audience instead of engaging it.

Like most artists (and writers) of her ilk, she is afflicted with the same malaise of ill-understood feminism. But that’s mildly forgivable compared to the generous amount of India-bashing she does. Needless, conditions apply*: third world country, rapes every second, unreported rapes, no justice for women, dowry harassment, unsafe drinking water, communal violence, MNCs are evil…  For good measure, she also says that the oppressed in all countries across the world are routinely put in jail. To quote,

“…if you are in Australia, it is mostly the Aborigines [who’re put in jail], if you’re in India, it’s the Muslims and the Adivasis, the tribals/Naxalites, and if you are in America, it’s mostly the blacks.” 

Doesn’t this immediately light up a passionate blaze of righteous anger in your heart? And what’s the solution? Spreading awareness and changing this dreary situation by staging plays and dance performances across India. Or in her words, through the “power of art.”

Mallika Sarabhai epitomizes the phenomenon of taking proverbs and sayings literally. In reality, the pen is not mightier than the sword. And the only aim of all art is to merely entertain not to preach or cause revolutions and sweeping social changes. Nobody in the Eastern or Western classical tradition ever proclaimed that social change is the goal of art. At best, a common refrain as to the goal of art even in the time of Dryden was to “entertain and provide moral instruction.” This changed when political science and sociology was injected into literature. A measure of the prevalence of this virus is available in our universities where literature department is full of folks who try to detect anthropology, sociology, and politics instead of the actual literary worth of a work. Does the White Tiger sound familiar?  This virus has also spread to mainstream cinema: Black Friday, Parzania, Mumbai Meri Jaan, etc. I don’t argue that works of art should be devoid of “social messages (sic)” but these messages should merely be incidental and essentially subservient to the overall story/theme.

But no, a tireless social activist is compelled to shove grotesque perversity into time-honoured epics like the Ramayana just so she can advertise her own brand of depraved feminism. A couple of years ago, this selfsame Mallika Sarabhai, the TED Fellow choreographed a vile dance-drama entitled, Surpanakha’s daughters. As this superb dissection puts it, Sarabhai wants Indian women to discard their traditional role models of women of exemplary character in favour of a woman “who relentlessly pursued a married man who showed no interest whatsoever in her!” Can we conclude that this is the change she wants to bring about in the society through her “art? “

In reality, our intellectually-vacuous thinkers imported the worst of Western feminism into India and superimposed it on to the Indian society. Western feminism arose out of a genuine need in those societies—for example, women were denied voting rights till the 1960s, about 50 years ere now. Also, oppression of women in those societies was also one of the outcomes of the industrial revolution, which in its early days, spawned a ruthless form of exploitative capitalism. However, India was a victim of the industrial revolution. Indian women suffered no such oppression. Besides, the status of Indian women as worship-worthy was still secure, and was handed down over a few thousand years. Indian women had such models as Gargi, Maitreyi, Arundhati, and Draupadi to look up to while their Western sisters had none. A poor Joan of Arc or a Hypatia who were put to death. Today, a Mata Amritanandamayi is worshipped by men and women with equal devotion. When I last heard, she didn’t go about preaching Mallika Sarabhai-brand of female equality.

Mallika Sarabhai’s opening lines, which launch a frontal attack on Brahmins is without doubt, racist. On the one hand, her caring heart weeps tears of blood for the oppressed, who she defines in terms of colour (black) and ethnic/racial origins (aborigines, adivasis) and on the other, she gleefully ridicules people of a specific caste. The indirect import is inescapable: Brahmins are always and at all times unjust and evil oppressors and they invent their Gods to justify their evil deeds.

Mallika Sarabhai’s mission of changing the society through art is but a mere sham notwithstanding whatever she says because we’re yet to see her record in social service and such other good stuff. As a classical danseuse, the least she could’ve spoken about was aesthetics, and/or the Rasa theory and her contribution to it.

The crucial question is: what message does Mallika’s antics send out to the global audience present at the TED event? What did the audience really take away from her session? These are questions that the wise people at TED need to dwell more deeply upon.

Hindu nationalists have appropriated my past and made it into a political statement of Hindutva.

This is a very clever cloak to hide behind: claim that you love your hoary Hindu “past” but blame the “Hindutva fanatics” for “appropriating it”– whatever that means. Even if you grant the possibility that “Hindutva fanatics” have politicized Hinduism, there’s not a single instance where Hindu nationalists have prevented any Hindu from practising his/her own understanding/version/variant/tradition of Sanatana Dharma. Gurcharan Das’ assertion stems from incorrectly assuming a symmetry between Hindu “fanaticism” with the Islamic and/or Christian counterpart.

If anything, Hindu nationalists, as I have said several times earlier, equate nationalism with something far nobler/holier than the crude nationalism of the 19th and early 20th century European states. Further, Das only presents a picture that is both incomplete and erroneous when he asserts that

Part of the reason that the sensible idea of secularism is having so much difficulty finding a home in India is that the most vocal and intellectual advocates of secularism were once Marxists.

The main reason why secularism rings a discordant bell in India is simply because it is alien to the collective Indian consciousness. This collective consciousness still, largely retains traces of the concept of Dharma. To paraphrase Ananda Coomaraswamy, one generation of English education is sufficient to sever this consciousness for good. And this is the other reason why India is still unable to reconcile itself to the idea of an alien socio-political philosophy. The Marxist cabal against Hinduism came much later–it was preceded by the hordes of Brown Sahibs who not only inherited the British idea of a false sense of superiority but also burdened themselves with ignorance about, and the resultant hatred for their own roots.

And further, and ironically, he notes that

Secularists speak a language alien to the vast majority, so they are only able to condemn communal violence but not to stop it, as Mahatma Gandhi could, in East Bengal in 1947. [.] Part of the problem stems from ignorance. Our children do not grow up reading our ancient classics…

but fails to notice that Mahatma Gandhi had a major role to play throughout, in the train of events that led to the said East Bengal violence. While Gandhi was a very staunch Hindu and took inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita, he had failed to grasp one of its core messages: it clearly condemns any act of pacifying evil as cowardice. The fact that Das uses Mahatma Gandhi as an example to condemn our secularists shows his understanding leaves a lot to be desired. At the risk of gross generalization, the secularist discourse ever since Indpendence has been the discourse of the Nehruvian Congress party. It varies only in syntax. And it was this discourse that led to the uprooting of everything Hindu in our education system. This is really why our children don’t grow up reading our ancient classics.

But I sincerely appreciate his interest in and love for the Mahabharata and his desire that our children learn that from an early age. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that he quotes Sukhtankar, a scholar close to my heart. However, Das’s real failing is that he is trapped by the secularism-as-the-only-solution-to-all-our-problems mantra and is unable to see beyond it.

The epic has given me great enjoyment in the past six years and I have become a Mahabharata addict. I feel sad that so many boys and girls in India are growing up rootless…As we think about sowing the seeds of secularism in India, we cannot just divide Indians between communalists and secularists. That would be too easy. The average Indian is decent and is caught in the middle. To achieve a secular society, believers must tolerate each other’s beliefs as well as the atheism of non-believers. Hindu nationalists must resist hijacking our religious past and turning it into votes. Secularists must learn to respect the needs of ordinary Indians for a transcendental life beyond reason. Only then will secularism find a comfortable home in India.

I’m truly astounded that a person who has read the Mahabharata for six years has failed to even investigate one word that occurs thousands of times in the epic: Dharma. Even a cursory investigation would’ve revealed how hollow, and most importantly, why secularism is unsuited to India.

Postscript: Here’s something for Gurcharan Das to dwell upon. The term Liberal Hindu is itself a misnomer. If you are a Hindu you’re liberal by implication.

Technorati : Brown Sahib, Commentary, Dharma, Gurcharan Das, Hindu Nationalism, Hinduism, Hindutva, History, India, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Sanatana Dharma, Society & Culture, Tradition
Del.icio.us : Brown Sahib, Commentary, Dharma, Gurcharan Das, Hindu Nationalism, Hinduism, Hindutva, History, India, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Sanatana Dharma, Society & Culture, Tradition

Surpassing Goebbels

Sandeep B

US uses fiction to slam freedom in India

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s India Chapter report on the extent of religious freedom in India released last week was an unwelcome ‘gift’ to India on the eve of its 62nd Independence Day. The report deserves to be flung into the nearest trash bin not because its prejudiced contents are predictable but because it’s the latest instance of America’s self-arrogated right to meddle with a sovereign republic’s internal affairs.

India firmly refused to issue visas to the USCIRF team despite recurrent requests earlier this year. This is entirely consistent with our time-honoured tradition of disallowing such intrusive adventures by foreign powers. The fact that the USCIRF’s India Chapter has released its report without first-hand experience of the situation here further bolsters its non-existent credibility. The 14-page report mentions the visa denial in a footnote, a clever ploy to make it appear as if the team studied things on the field.

Perusing the report confirms suspicions: It is based on a mix of hearsay, biased media reports, ‘verdicts’ of the Gujarat NGO cottage industry, and exhibits a total absence of the historical sense required to analyse socio-religious dynamics. Which makes it cushy to draw this conclusion: Hindu organisations are always the perpetrators of every act of societal conflagration. The USCIRF seems to have drawn this conclusion first and then sewn the ‘facts’ to arrive at it.

A news report in May had predicted that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was a likely target of the USCIRF’s visit. The report doesn’t disappoint. It dedicates an entire page to chastise Mr Modi, based on untrustworthy media reports. The USCIRF relies on Tehelka to “(reveal) the complicity of Mr Narendra Modi…” and calls upon the Government to “Ensure that any efforts to bring a case against Mr Modi are allowed to proceed in accordance with the law.” It is important to note the USCIRF’s duplicity here: The Indian Government is yet to take an official position on Tehelka’s “revelations” on Mr Modi. But the USCIRF decides that it is gospel truth! Second, how does the USCIRF assume the right to dictate the Indian Government to ensure that a case is framed against Mr Modi?

The report also repeats the same falsehoods about the Gujarat episode:

• A fire on a train resulted in the death of 58 Hindus returning from Ayodhya. It appears that the compartment lit itself!
• 2,000 Muslims dead in the riots. It’s hard to believe that the USCIRF hasn’t heard of Mr Sri Prakash Jaiswal’s (then Union Minister of State for Home) May 2005 report, which gives the following numbers: 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus dead, and 223 injured.
• No rehabilitation of riot victims: The Gujarat Government has published detailed figures explaining the nature and amount of compensation provided to riot victims irrespective of religion.

The USCIRF follows the secular script in writing on the Hindu-Christian violence in Orissa and Karnataka. This script has some of its roots in the Graham Staines case, where Staines was painted as a sainted martyr with Dara Singh as his heartless butcher. No mention of the disruptive effect of wanton conversions as the cause for fake martyrdom. But opposing licentious conversions violates religious freedom! Understandably, the report devotes over two pages to this. To its eternal disgrace, the USCIRF actually blames Swami Lakshamananda Saraswati for “fomenting and encouraging… violence against Christians…” Can we interpret this to mean “and, therefore, he deserved to be murdered?”

What Orissa and Karnataka continue to witness is a widely-repeated phenomenon: Societal violence eventually occurs wherever Evangelists accelerate their conversion efforts. When they wean sufficient numbers away from their ancestral faith, they pit these neo converts against members of their erstwhile faith.

But the USCIRF pontificates on religious freedom while studiously ignoring real evidence from the other side. The 58 Hindus roasted alive, tribals coerced into Christianity, and Hindu gods abused as prostitutes’ sons have neither rights nor religious freedom.

Therein lies the true story of the USCIRF.

The USCIRF was set up in 1998 by Mr Bill Clinton who gave in to the pressure of the powerful Christian evangelical lobby. Most of the USCIRF appointees have the direct blessings of these evangelist groups. Its definition of ‘religious freedom’ includes unimpeded rights to convert populations at will without any respect for local customs and laws. Therefore, it is entirely consistent that one of the stronger recommendations of the India Chapter report urges the Indian Government to relax or do away with anti-conversion laws. It is also not coincidental that Pakistan and China don’t figure on the USCIRF ‘watch list’.

India shouldn’t recognise the self-righteous pronouncements of an agenda-driven body. One of the USCIRF’s goals is to give policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress. At best, the report is another method to gather intelligence about other countries.

India’s response was predictably weak. The right response was to give it the drubbing it deserves. But we have a vacillating Prime Minister who seeks US sanction for every action. Ironically, many Indian leaders turn to eminence in the US who have links with the USCIRF worthies for ‘advice’ on national security!

Communal violence in India is real but we don’t need ill-informed report writers in the US to tell us about it or what we need to do about it.

Technorati : Christian Lobby, Commentary, Conversions, Daily Pioneer, Fundamentalist Evangelists, India, Indian Politics, Op-ed in Pioneer, Pioneer, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Religion, Religious Freedom, Secularism, Society & Culture, USCIRF
Del.icio.us : Christian Lobby, Commentary, Conversions, Daily Pioneer, Fundamentalist Evangelists, India, Indian Politics, Op-ed in Pioneer, Pioneer, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Religion, Religious Freedom, Secularism, Society & Culture, USCIRF

Seriously, I’m wasting my breath even writing this. The fact of an Indian Mujahideen points to something really sinister. Think about it.